Back to news

February 20, 2020 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

New defence procurement agency would be disruptive, costly

It almost seemed like a throwaway line at the end of the Liberal Party's 2019 election platform, in a section on proposed approaches to security: “To ensure that Canada's biggest and most complex defence procurement projects are delivered on time and with greater transparency to Parliament, we will move forward with the creation of Defence Procurement Canada.”

Little was said about the proposal during the election campaign, but in the mandate letters to ministers that followed, National Defence (DND), Public Services and Procurement (PSPC), and Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard were tasked with bringing forward options to establish Defence Procurement Canada (DPC), a priority, the Prime Minister wrote, “to be developed concurrently with ongoing procurement projects and existing timelines.”

Whether DPC would be a department, standalone agency or new entity within an existing department isn't clear. Nor is it apparent how the government would consolidate and streamline the myriad procurement functions of multiple departments.

Jody Thomas, deputy minister of National Defence, acknowledged as much during an address to the Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI) Jan. 29 when asked about DPC progress.

“I don't know what it is going to look like ... We're building a governance to look at what the options could be and we are studying what other countries have done,” she said, noting that a standalone agency outside the department of defence has not necessarily worked particularly well in other countries. “Everything is on the table. We're looking at it, but we haven't actually begun the work in earnest.”

The idea of moving defence procurement under a single point of accountability is hardly new. Alan Williams, a former assistant deputy minister of Material (Adm Mat), made the case for a single agency in a 2006 book, Reinventing Canadian Defence Procurement. And the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI) issued a report in 2009 calling for a “separate defence procurement agency reporting through a single Minister ... [to] consolidate procurement, industrial, contracting and trade mandates into one new department, like a Defence Production Department, reporting to a minister.”

More recently, an interim report on defence procurement by the Senate Committee on National Defence in June 2019 argued that “a single agency could simplify the complex procurement governance framework. Serious consideration could also be given to empowering project officials and making the Department of National Defence the lead department.”

Williams remains a strong proponent. In a presentation to a CGAI conference on defence procurement in the new Parliament in late November, he greeted the DPC decision with a “hallelujah,” pointing to the high cost created by overlap and duplication when multiple ministers are involved in a military acquisition decision, and the tendency to play the “blame game” when delays or problems arise and there is no single point of accountability.

But he cautioned that the initiative would falter without better system-wide performance measures on cost, schedules and other metrics. “If you don't monitor and put public pressure on the system, things will [slide],” he said.

Williams also called for a defence industrial plan, backed by Cabinet approval, to help identify where to invest defence capital, and “a culture that recognizes and demands innovative creativity, taking chances.”

Other former senior civil servants, many with decades of experience in public sector organizational reform, were less optimistic about the prospects of a new agency or departmental corporation.

“There is always a good reason why things are the way they are,” said Jim Mitchell, a research associate with the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa and part of massive reorganization of government departments undertaken by Prime Minister Kim Campbell during her brief tenure in 1993.

“If you want to change things, you first have to understand, why do we have the current situation that we have in defence procurement and who are the people who have a major stake in the status quo and why? If you don't understand that, you are going to get into big trouble,” he warned the CGAI audience of government and industry leaders.

At a time when the departments are moving a record number of equipment projects, including CF-188 Hornet replacement, through the acquisition process under the government's 2017 defence policy, any restructuring could significantly delay progress.

“Organizational change is always disruptive, it's costly, it's difficult, it's hard on people, it hurts efficiency and effectiveness of organizations for a couple of years at minimum,” said Mitchell. “It is something you do very, very carefully.”

It's a point not lost on CADSI. “The sheer scale of the change required to make DPC real should give companies pause. It could involve some 4,000-6,000 government employees from at least three departments and multiple pieces of legislation, all while the government is in the middle of the most aggressive defence spending spree in a generation,” the association wrote in an email to members in December.

A vocal proponent of improving procurement, it called DPC “a leap of faith,” suggesting it might be “a gamble that years of disruption will be worth it and that the outcomes of a new system will produce measurably better results, including for industry.”

Gavin Liddy, a former assistant deputy minister with PSPC, questioned the reasoning for change when measures from earlier procurement reform efforts such as increased DND contracting authority up to $5 million are still taking effect.

“You really need an extraordinarily compelling reason to make any kind of organizational change. And every time we have attempted it ... it takes five to seven years before the organization is up and standing on its feet,” he told CGAI. “If you want to do one single thing to delay the defence procurement agenda...create a defence procurement agency. Nothing would divert attention more than doing that.”

While few questioned the need for enhancements to the defence procurement process, many of the CGAI participants raised doubts about the logic of introducing a new entity less than three years into the government's 20-year strategy. Thomas described a number of improvements to project management and governance that are already making a difference.

“The budgeting and project management in defence is really extraordinarily well done. If I am told by ADM Mat they are going to spend $5.2 billion, then that is what they spend. And we have the ability to bring more down, or less, depending on how projects are rolling,” she explained. “We are completely transparent about how we are getting money spent, what the milestones are on projects ... The program management board is functioning differently and pulling things forward instead of waiting until somebody is ready to push it forward.”

“And we are working with PSPC. I think it is time to look at the government contracting [regulations], how much we compete, what we sole source, the reasons we sole source. I think there is a lot of work there that can be done that will improve the system even more.”

https://www.skiesmag.com/news/new-defence-procurement-agency-would-be-disruptive-costly

On the same subject

  • Pushing fighter jet deadline raises questions on which jets can do the work: experts

    March 2, 2020 | Local, Aerospace

    Pushing fighter jet deadline raises questions on which jets can do the work: experts

    Amanda Connolly GlobalNews.ca WATCH: Canadian fighter jets intercepted two Russian bombers travelling near the North American coastline. While they were in international airspace they entered an area patrolled by the Canadians. The two American aerospace firms that want the Canadian government to buy their fighter jets say they did not request an extension on the deadline for bids. At the same time, defence experts say the decision to grant the extension reflects the bigger challenge facing a government that has repeatedly insisted a competition is the only way to move forward with the $19-billion procurement, despite there being a limited pool of options. “The government believes it needs to run a competition, but there're many situations where, in reality, there's only one or two competitors that can actually meet the needs of the Canadian Forces,” said Richard Shimooka, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and an expert on defence. “So the government's put in a bit of a pickle by its rhetoric where it wants to portray that ‘yeah, we're having a competition or we're providing value for money and all these kind of important things for Canada', but in fact knows there's really only one competitor.” On Tuesday, the government announcement that the March 30 deadline will be pushed back three months, to June 30 instead. READ MORE: Canadian fighter jet replacement project hit with another delay In a press release on the decision earlier in the week, the government had said this extension was being granted “at the request of industry.” “Procurements of this magnitude are complex, and submission of a good proposal is important for suppliers and for Canada,” the government said in the press release. “This extension allows eligible suppliers to address recent feedback on their security offers, ensuring that Canada receives competitive proposals that meet its technical, cost and economic benefits requirements.” Global News has since been told that feedback included specific assessments about whether a firm would be able to meet the Canadian government's requirements for inter-operability with key allies, including the U.S. and the Five Eyes, and whether allies would be comfortable with them. Because the government is using a process known as phased bids for the fighter jet procurement, bidders get the chance to address any findings of non-compliance with those requirements before submitting their final proposals. And because of how closely Canada and the U.S. work together on issues ranging from intelligence sharing, continental defence and others, inter-operability – or the ability for jets to work seamlessly across various areas where Canadian and American systems overlap – is considered key to this contest. “We've got to buy aircraft that can be completely and seamlessly inter-operable with the U.S.,” said Dave Perry, vice president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and an expert on defence procurement. “They've asked the bidders to put forward a proposal on how they're going to make that work.” Perry noted that in the past, questions around how aircraft will operate between Canadian and American systems hasn't been relevant because Canadian fighter jets have always been American. Now, with foreign bidders like Sweden's Saab, the onus is on them to demonstrate their jets can actually do the work. “Saab is the only competitor that is not part of either Five Eyes or Two Eyes and as a result, it would have the greatest amount of work in order to meet the requirements of the Royal Canadian Airforce,” said Shimooka. “Right off the bat, it requires the greatest amount of work for this.” While the government wouldn't say which firm asked for the deadline extension, both Lockheed Martin and Boeing offered statements saying it wasn't them. “We did not request the extension,” said Boeing spokesperson Stephanie Townend. A spokesperson for Lockheed Martin offered a similar response. “We have not requested an extension of delivery for the FFCP preliminary proposal,” said Amanda Hauck, strategic communications lead for the firm. A spokesperson for Saab was less clear. “While Canada's FFCP competition prohibits bidders from commenting publicly on confidential elements of the RFP process, Saab was prepared, and remains prepared, to submit a bid based on the Government of Canada's schedule,” said Patrick Palmer, executive vice president of sales and marketing for Saab Canada. “Saab will continue to finalize its response to all stated requirements of the RFP and can confirm that we will submit a fully compliant response to the Future Fighter Capability Program RFP. We are confident that our offer will provide the best value and best solution for Canada, industry and Canadians for generations to come.” Global News followed up with a request for Palmer to clarify whether the bid Saab said it was prepared to submit by the March 30 deadline would have been a fully compliant one. The company has not yet clarified its response. Saab is offering its Gripen fighter jet in the contest while Lockheed Martin is offering its controversial F-35 and Boeing is offering its Super Hornet. Two other European firms – Airbus and Dassault – dropped out of the contest over the past year-and-a-half, citing security requirements and associated extra costs for the suppliers if chosen. The competition is complicated though by questions and past concerns about both of the American offerings. Boeing brought a trade tribunal complaint against the Canadian aerospace firm Bombardier in 2018 which resulted in Bombardier being forced to pay steep duties on imports of its C-Series plane to the United States. Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains said shortly afterward that the government would weigh a company's “economic behaviour” and that those who had caused economic harm to Canada would be at a disadvantage in the fighter jet competition. That clause still exists in the criteria being used to assess the projects. But Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also promised during the 2015 election campaign not to buy the F-35, the planned procurement of which under the previous Conservative government had been dogged with accusations of hidden costs and sole-sourcing. Since the launch of the competition, the F-35 has become widely-viewed by military experts as a frontrunner in the contest. A government source speaking on background insisted the extension will not impact the expected decision date. The result of the contest are due in 2022 with expected delivery of whichever jet is chosen beginning in 2025. https://q107.com/news/6600416/canada-fighter-jet-competition/

  • North American aviation product, support & services businesses that are remaining open during the COVID-19 crisis | Update April 15

    April 27, 2020 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    North American aviation product, support & services businesses that are remaining open during the COVID-19 crisis | Update April 15

    At Skies, we've heard from a number of North American aviation product, support and services businesses that are doing their best to keep our industry moving during this global pandemic. To ensure that operators can still access the support they need, here is a non-exhaustive list of companies who are still open for business in some capacity. This list will be updated regularly. If you would like your company to be added to the list, please email news@skiesmag.com. Aero Aviation Ltd. Airborne Engines Ltd. Airbus Helicopters Canada Air Comm Corporation Air Georgian AirSuite Inc. AJW Technique Alpine Aerotech ALSIM Flight Training Solutions Altitude Aerospace Inc. Anodyne Electronics Manufacturing Corp. Apex Industries Inc. ARTEX Atlantic Avionics Aurora Jet Partners Avialta Helicopter Maintenance Ltd. Avianor Inc. Aviation Business Support Inc. Aviation Ground Fueling Technologies Avicor Aviation International Avmax Avstar Media AvroTecknik Aviation B.C. Aviation Council Bella Coola Air Ltd. Boeing Distribution Inc. Bridger Aerospace Group, LLC Brotech Precision CNC Inc. Cadorath Calm Air International Canadian Airports Council Canadian Air Parts, Ltd. Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Canadian Business Aviation Association Canadian Council for Aviation & Aerospace CanRep Inc. CanWest Aerospace Inc. CarteNav Solutions (Mission systems) Cascade Aerospace Custom Helicopters Cyclone Manufacturing DART Aerospace De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd. Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc. (London, Ont.) Eagle Copters EFC Developments Elisen & Associés Inc. Essential Turbines, Inc. EuroTec Canada Exchange Petroleum Execaire Executive Flight Centre Fast Air – Air Charter Services Fast Air Jet Centre (FBO) FDC Aero Composites Field Aviation (Calgary and Toronto) Firkus Aircraft Inc. Fleet Canada Inc. Flight Data Systems Flightdeck Solutions Flightdocs FlightPath International FlightSafety Canada FlightSafety International Flying Colours Corp. FlyRite Accessory Overhauls Inc. Freedom Aero Service Inc. FreeFlight Systems Global Airparts Inc. Helicopter Accessory Service South, LLC. Helicopter Accessory Service, Inc. Heli-Lynx Helicopters Heli-One Heliproducts Industries Helitowcart Helitrades Heliwelders Canada Ltd. HM Aero Aviation Consulting Hope Aero Propeller & Components Inc. Hopkinson Aircraft Sales ICARUS Aero, Inc. Image Air IMP Aerospace Innotech Aviation JITbase KADEX Aero Supply Ltd. Keewatin Air (Aircraft maintenance and hangarage) KF Aerospace Latitude Technologies Lee Aerospace Levaero Aviation Longview Aviation Capital Marshall Aerospace Canada Inc. Maxcraft Avionics Ltd. Meridian Helicopters LLC Mid-Canada Mod Center Moncton Flight College Morningstar Air Express National Airlines Council of Canada National Helicopters Inc. Nav Canada Northwest Helicopters NovaJet Aviation Group Pacific Coastal Airlines (Emergency charter services and reduced WestJet Link flights) PAL Aerospace PAL Airlines PAL Aviation Services (Full-service FBO) Passport Helico (Commercial 702/703 and AMO) Perimeter Aviation Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Precision Aero Components Premier Aviation Québec Inc. Priority 1 Air Rescue Professional Aircraft Accessories Professional Aircraft Associates Propair Inc. PropWorks Propeller Systems QualaTech Aero Consulting Ltd. Rocky Mountain Aircraft Rotorcorp, LLC Rotor Services Ltd. Sander Geophysics Limited (Air cargo) Sealand Aviation Ltd. Sealand Aerospace Ltd. Sealand Flight SEI Industries Select Helicopter Services Ltd. Signature Flight Support – Edmonton Skandia, Inc. Skyservice Business Aviation SKYTRAC Systems Springer Aerospace StandardAero Summit Aviation Sunwest Aviation Szabo Aviation International TEAAM Aeromedical Technisonic Industries Ltd. Tempest Aviation Thunder Airlines Tradewind International, LLC TrainingPort.net Transwest Helicopters Ltd. TSL Aerospace Technologies Ltd. Turbolyft Aerospace United Aero Group Upper Valley Aviation Ltd. Vanguard Air Care VIH Aerospace Viking Air Ltd. Vmo Solutions Voyageur Aviation Corp. Wasaya Airways Westcan Aircraft Sales & Salvage Ltd. Western Aircraft Western Propeller Westholme Graphics, Inc. Wilderness Helicopters WinAir We're all in this together! https://www.skiesmag.com/news/canadian-aviation-product-support-services-businesses-that-are-remaining-open-during-the-covid-19-crisis/

  • Magellan Aerospace signs agreement with BAE Systems for F-35 aircraft assemblies

    December 9, 2022 | Local, Aerospace

    Magellan Aerospace signs agreement with BAE Systems for F-35 aircraft assemblies

    Magellan Aerospace Corporation announced that it will continue producing F-35 Lightning II horizontal tail assemblies under an agreement with BAE Systems.

All news